On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 1:16 PM, James Salsman <jsalsman(a)gmail.com> wrote:
when
"ticketed", this is usually to control numbers when
space is limited. This model works pretty well and makes them
popular events; indeed, they're one of our most visible public activities.
I don't see where the benefit would come from selling - or raffling,
auctioning, etc- tickets.
We should be treating editing wikipedia as one of the most profoundly
influential things a person can do in society, because there are
pretty good reasons to believe that it is. We should present
editathons led by skilled wikipedians as the premier cultural events
that they are. We are recruiting the people who will teach those who
are not in school, who answer questions and direct those in need of
assistance to the best resources. Wikipedia is the most monumental
feat of literature that civilization has yet produced. The idea that
art or sculpture exhibits should raise more money than training new
editors is, frankly, preposterous, and stems from the same fallacies
which keep the rest of the developed world from achieving teacher
salaries on par with Korea's.
It would invariably deter attendees and reduce
uptake
I propose that this be measured, because there is reason to believe
that transitioning to a half-auction, haff-raffle model could increase
public interest for a variety of reasons: acknowledging them as the
literary events that they are, the novelty (which may or may not
last), the opportunity for anyone to mingle with those who were able
to afford tickets if an when such events do become popular, etc. If at
some point an auction raises an unexpectedly large amount of money,
other cultural institutions might start to take notice, offer to host
editathons, or even start their own.
This is completely ignoring the problem of people who cannot afford to
either (a) buy a /ticket/, on top of everything else they are already
expected to buy, or (b) spend time waiting for a totally random and
arbitrary decision about whether they won one in a raffle to schedule
things. Consider me definitely in category B.
Let me also express my amusement and profound disquiet at the
descriptor of an editathon as a "literary event". We're already
claiming Wikipedia "breaks theory" - do you not think we have enough
of a sense of importance? ;p
why would making them more exclusive be a *good*
thing?
"Exclusive" has both positive and negative connotations. Exclusive
access to important sources is good for those who have access, but bad
for everyone else. The half-raffle aspect keeps everyone involved
without precluding the possibility of the events paying for
themselves, paying all the bills in advance, and not risking low
turnout or exceeding the size of the venue, which very substantially
lowers the risk of organizing and hosting them. Presumably that could
serve to make them easier and make them more likely to be held.
I worry that running an auction and a raffle for
each - or even some -
editathons would be a lot of work
I think software support should be easy, or even administration by
email. Any auction bid, even 0, will enter the raffle, and auction
bids would be accepted as payment from half of the available seats.
When fewer nonzero bids than half the seats are received, then they
would all be accepted and the remaining seats would be raffled.
You'd be paying volunteers, which in this
country would make them
staff, which means they'd need a minimum wage, taxes, and even a
pension.
Isn't there a way to put the requirement of taking care of those tasks
and expenses in the job responsibilities? Aren't there service agencies
who do that as a flat fee for the mass commercial market?
there's no shortage of volunteers to run
editathons in the UK
I wish other countries could say the same. But compare editathons to,
for example, poetry slams, or street protests, in any country. Which
are more common and which do we need more of? I am asking that someone
measure the proposed way which may be able to substantially increase
their number.
Again, you haven't shown how there's currently a problem paying for
events. Unless this really is a "we should pay people to act as
instructors", in which case, I don't even know what to do with that.
Pay expenses, yes - see my comments about diversity above. Actively
pay them? I'm not seeing the need. What I'm seeing is a proposal which
would be massively exclusionary, add a layer of paperwork on top of
these events that does not currently exist - or more, if you're
suggesting (as below) that we get some kind of commercial entity, or
MULTIPLE commercial entities, to handle actually administrating this
influx of part-time employees, and all of this out of the idea that
requiring raffle software and participants to pay money and editathon
organisers to either sign contracts or do pension forms will make it
/more/ likely that there will be volunteers to run them and /more/
likely that people will show up.
This is not practical. I'm not sure why we're debating it in such
detail when that's the one thing most of us seem to agree on.
Best regards,
James
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>